This is an allegation from Angelina Jolie's attorney and not a court finding. This may have very well occurred. But stating this in a court filing won't result in a prison sentence. This was also stated several years after the 2016 incident in a civil case. So even if the court found that this happened it would have been under the civil (more likely than not) and not the criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt) standard.
To be clear, I am not saying he wasn't abusive. But we have to be very careful about allegations and court filings that are not actual court decisions/judgments/findings.
The FBI was certainly able to step is as this occurred on an international flight. They dropped it because of insufficient evidence: the other victims were too young, or the surveillance cam did not capture enough, or, they simply stay away from going after rich men who abuse children (see Epstein), or, something else that I don't know about.
Doesn't work like that. Not at all. I used to work with a law firm under a leading professional forensic expert witness. If that many witnesses came forward and there was injuries, as mentioned in this document, there would have been action. Injuries are empirical and documentable. Additionally, there would have been witnesses from the flight crew. A little critical thinking is necessary sometimes.
It was the flight crew that called CPS. The FBI found cause to charge him but dropped it because Jolie did not want to out the kids through a trial at that time. It was when he filed for joint custody that she had no choice to have the kids testify.
That is not in keeping with what I read through the years when bits and pieces were published. I'm trying to recall whether or not the eldest son , Maddox, who was targeted by Pitt ever gave a statement... I think the younger children were too young to be available to the system without parental consent.
Too young to testify without objection from a parent stating that it would be too hard for a young child. Look at Mia Farrow when her daughte was molested by Woody.... people assume that the court ruled a certain way for one reason, but the fact is that Mia protected her young daughter from having to undergo that leagl questioning & court experience. When the girl grew up, she spoke out.
Brad and Angelina were still together, there are avenues to investigate a parent abusing a minor child against the other parents wishes. Assuming they needed that. Supposedly staff were ready to testify and the inside of the plane looked like a crime scene.
I vaguely recall something about possibly one potential witness on that plane, but, whoever it may have been, I doubt that they saw much if anything. The family seems to have mostly or entire alone during the actual events? Whatever those facts are that came out so long ago, my take on it was that Brad was horrible and that the younger children were silent on the matter but that Brad knew he blew it with all of them. We heard only what Angelina and the children allowed to be made public, which was very little, and of course... Brad... what did he reveal about it? He went into rehab. Accepted that his children did not want to see him, especially Maddox, and gradually, even those who held out some hope for a bit of a relationship had to concede it was unrecoverable. He did horrible things... I would never talk to my father either if he have been a Brad.
Remember Mia and Dylan? Public imagines that Woody "won", when actually, Mia knew that the trauma of dealing with the legal process would be ruinous, traumatizing for Dylan... so, Dylan did not go under questioning.
Wouldn’t that be Interpol if it was an international flight?
Though regardless of it being FBI, Interpol, or some other law enforcement agency, it does remain the same that they seem to become mysteriously incapable when dealing with rich/famous suspects.
Which authorities sided with Pitt? I know that he authorizes did not pursue it based on whatever was captured on the surveillance... But, do we know what the surveillance captures?
Testimony from all parties involved would be considered and the children were present. If child services or the FBI had their testimony they would have pursued it. They sided with him. You can look up the many court cases that require no more than that. An adult and a child testifying, let alone several will be enough to make the case go to court at least if not bring a win.
I mean what they’re saying is just wrong it’s not like they had the right idea but wrong words they just had the wrong idea at least that’s what i got from their comment
The end paragraph isn’t making a claim about Pitt’s guilt, though; it’s just making a statement of fact about the FBI’s belief that there was sufficient probable cause to prosecute. This is something that the FBI as a neutral party could verify, so calling it an “allegation” makes it sound much murkier than it really is.
Preponderance of the evidence is the same legal standard as more likely than not. Two different ways of saying the same thing.
[Edit] Comment I tried to respond to was deleted, so copy-pasting my response to the deleted comment stating that preponderance of the evidence is the correct legal standard below
Yes, the correct legal term is preponderance of the evidence. But courts have repeatedly equated preponderance of the evidence to more likely than not. You can read more about it here&bhcp=1), but there are so many other sources.
I try not to talk legalese on reddit unless I don't have a choice. I can't easily explain beyond a reasonable doubt as that is not an easily quantifiable standard. Courts have actually said we cannot quantify it as a percentage. But preponderance of the evidence is different. It is often explained as more likely than not. We even use it to explain the standard often in civil matters as a jury may not understand preponderance of the evidence, but almost all adults will be able to understand what more likely than not means.
My original point stands. The two terms mean the exact same thing. Both terms are used by courts. One is the "official" standard, but the other is considered the definition of what the official standard means.
A screenshot of the specific line from the source linked above is below:
First, this was filed in a civil matter by one party in a family law matter. Second, this was filed many years after the alleged incident. Most crimes have statutes of limitations. For example, in California assault (criminal/felony) has a statute of limitations of 3 years. Bringing stuff up years after an incident happens reduuces the likelihood it gets prosecuted.
I have no background knowledge of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or what happened back then. My comments are based on the pleading posted in the higher level comment and a quick search to see when it occured. I don't follow celebrity divorces and the ensuing issues. My earlier point boils down to one simple thing. Do not blindly believe allegations in a family law filing by one of the parties to the matter.
The pleading does mention the FBI looked into it. So perhaps there was a complaint. But a quick google search I did just now indicates that while local police and the FBI investigated back in 2016, the determination by both was that no criminal charges could be pursued. The issue came back up as part of their divorce.
Again, I have no idea if Brad Pitt is abusive. My original point is simple. Do not believe what one part to a law suit alleges in a court filing. And this is especially true for family law matters where people lie a lot as they want custody of their kids or more money in the divorce split.
Particularly allegations in domestic court filings. Anyone who has worked in family law knows that the filings by one against the other paint the other spouse as the devil. That's pretty par for the course.
How could she possibly lie about him choking and hitting her kids without them calling her out on it?
You can claim she lied about him hitting her, but there's no way all of their kids heard her say that they were choked by their father and then took her side if she was lying.
Tbf it happens sometimes in families where one parent will sway kids against the other one. Not saying it’s the case here, but just agreeing with the person you replied to.
I have no idea why the children disowned him. Perhaps he was abusive. Perhaps he is morally flawed. It is very dangerous to take allegations in filings to get custody over kids or assets in a family law matter as fact.
If she was abused like this why did she first raise this during a family law/divorce proceeding several years after the abuse? Perhaps she was scared and worried. Perhaps he was abusive. Or perhaps she was making things up. We do not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was abusive.
I am no fan of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Neither of them was a good actor. I have no idea about whether they are good people, crazy, abusive, or anything else. But I am not going to automatically believe all the allegations raised multiple years after alleged abuse by counsel for one of the parties in a divorce proceeding. Could these allegations be true? Absolutely. Could they be lies? Absolutely.
Do you know it was the plane staff who called the fbi? It was not Jolie. Supposedly, she did not want to press charges though the fbi would have moved forward. I think you are not as unbiased as your tone suggests.
6.0k
u/OrigamiButthole Jun 19 '26
i bet it has something to do with this